Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Reptilia]

I have some questions of my own about the Hunter Class for anyone who knows:

1. The ADF webpage I quoted said of timing “December 2022: Steel cut on the First of Class at Osborne Naval Shipyard - South in Adelaide”. However the ANAO audit says that the Hunter program is now running 16 to 18 months late. Does that mean first steel has not yet been cut on Hunter?

2. What is the construction drumbeat for the Hunters? The 8 Anzacs were all launched within 10 years between 1996 and 2006. Can Hunters match that? If launch of Hunter (1) slips from 2031 to 2032 Anzac will be 36 years old. Unless the eighth Hunter is in the water by 2042, the eighth Anzac will be eve; older when it gets replaced. So does anyone know what drumbeat is planned?

3. The growth in Hunter class tonnage due to the addition of the bigger radar and other systems has been widely reported. Wikipedia (sorry I know) lists tonnage as 10,000 tonnes full load compared to 8000 tonnes full load for the Type 26. The engines for the Hunter, Type 26 and RCN CSC ae all listed as the same:

• 4 × Rolls-Royce MTU Type 20V 4000 M53B high-speed diesel generators

So to me the obvious question is will RAN Hunters have the same range and speed as Type 26 if they are 25% heavier but have the same engines? I assume a few knots of top speed does not matter that much for an ASW ship but what about the range? That must matter a lot for the RAN.

I have been following this thread and reading people’s posts on the Hunters. At this stage I would not like to see anything delay the start of construction further.

From my comments on timing and drumbeat I am concerned that if we are late replacing Anzacs as well as subs we may not have an ASW “capability gap” as such, but there must be some risk we will start losing numbers of experienced seagoing crews? I assume these will then be hard to rebuild. Is there any prospect of additional destroyer/frigate construction as a “catch up”?

Navantia made an offer to build another 3 AWDs at a competitive price ($6 billion) by 2030 to avoid this gap. Assuming that was in addition to, not instead of Hunters, is this not worth pursuing? Otherwise I don’t see how we can make up the time lost without the (“tier 1”) fleet of major vessels (frigates and destroyers) shrinking in the 2030s. Could Henderson build some AWDs (with Spanish help) while Adelaide continued with Hunters?

1. Hunter 1 has just begun.
2. First Hunter in service by 2032/33, every follow on Hunter 2-2.5 years each. All 9 2032-(48-52), with reduction to 6, 2032-(42-45)
3. Yes, they expect the ship to be slower, Expected max load. City 8,000 ton, Hunter 11,000 ton, CSC 9,000 ton

plan was
CIVMEC - 10 Arafuras by 2030. The last 6 of 12 may not go ahead. But, we ordered 12. Tier 2 ship expected to be built following Arafura.
BAE - 9 hunters by mid 2040s. Now time slipped and looking like late 40s, early 50s. Reducing the number built also possible.
AUSTAL - last Cape class expected early 2025 for navy. From then on ?, maybe they make it 10 capes for navy.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I have narrowed out this point very specifically, to make comment.

It is my understanding that Navantia put the offer in as A - they have limited workload for the shipyards in Spain. B- That the ships would be built & fitted out there, with minimal work in AUS once they arrived.

The reality of this is two-fold
#1 -Navantia can build the ships CHEAPER in Spain, so would make a lot of money off the contract.
#2 - The skills learned by the workforce if the ships were built in AUS (plus any monies spent on materials / along with the fact that the workforce & suppliers then spend that cash in AUS, keeping the money & taxes in-country) benefits AUS.

The point I'm tryuing to make is that AUS pays a lot of money for x3 ships, but doesn't gain as much in return, in effect it would cost the country more. This might be part of the main socio-economic/ political drive to ignore the offer & keep everything effectively in-house.

SA

Systems Addict I do not argue your point and would also prefer that Australian shipbuilding be the focus. That was why I was asking a question - could the Navantia offer be implemented in combination with work at Henderson to help get more ships more quickly?

Alternatively could delivery of Hunters (or additional AWDs) be sped up at Adelaide? I don’t know, hence am asking that question? Is there more capacity in the Australian industry somewhere?

If none of these things are possible then, as with the acquisition of Virginias from USA as an interim measure in AUKUS, a “catchup” build of a few units in a friendly country might help with numbers.

 

[John Fedup]

I have some questions of my own about the Hunter Class for anyone who knows:

1. The ADF webpage I quoted said of timing “December 2022: Steel cut on the First of Class at Osborne Naval Shipyard - South in Adelaide”. However the ANAO audit says that the Hunter program is now running 16 to 18 months late. Does that mean first steel has not yet been cut on Hunter?

2. What is the construction drumbeat for the Hunters? The 8 Anzacs were all launched within 10 years between 1996 and 2006. Can Hunters match that? If launch of Hunter (1) slips from 2031 to 2032 Anzac will be 36 years old. Unless the eighth Hunter is in the water by 2042, the eighth Anzac will be eve; older when it gets replaced. So does anyone know what drumbeat is planned?

3. The growth in Hunter class tonnage due to the addition of the bigger radar and other systems has been widely reported. Wikipedia (sorry I know) lists tonnage as 10,000 tonnes full load compared to 8000 tonnes full load for the Type 26. The engines for the Hunter, Type 26 and RCN CSC ae all listed as the same:

• 4 × Rolls-Royce MTU Type 20V 4000 M53B high-speed diesel generators

So to me the obvious question is will RAN Hunters have the same range and speed as Type 26 if they are 25% heavier but have the same engines? I assume a few knots of top speed does not matter that much for an ASW ship but what about the range? That must matter a lot for the RAN.

I have been following this thread and reading people’s posts on the Hunters. At this stage I would not like to see anything delay the start of construction further.

From my comments on timing and drumbeat I am concerned that if we are late replacing Anzacs as well as subs we may not have an ASW “capability gap” as such, but there must be some risk we will start losing numbers of experienced seagoing crews? I assume these will then be hard to rebuild. Is there any prospect of additional destroyer/frigate construction as a “catch up”?

Navantia made an offer to build another 3 AWDs at a competitive price ($6 billion) by 2030 to avoid this gap. Assuming that was in addition to, not instead of Hunters, is this not worth pursuing? Otherwise I don’t see how we can make up the time lost without the (“tier 1”) fleet of major vessels (frigates and destroyers) shrinking in the 2030s. Could Henderson build some AWDs (with Spanish help) while Adelaide continued with Hunters?

All three versions have a MT30 gas turbine in addition to the four diesels.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Reptilia

Thanks for that info on program timing. Unfortunately though that confirms my fears. If we don’t finish Hunters till 2048 to 2052 the 8th Anzac will be over 40 years old by then (in 2046), which means fleet numbers or serviceability will continue declining.

In fact, Hobart will turn 30 in 2047, so we should have started replacing the Hobarts before we will have finished the Hunters. From a niaive “counting the hulls” viewpoint, the whole program looks too late, just as the Attacks were. This is not a criticism of ASC but past government ordering.

Logically, if we want to increase RAN “tier 1” hull numbers back to 12 or more, and we build the larger ships on a 2 year drumbeat, it takes 24 years to renew the fleet, without any growth. So shouldn’t we be completing a destroyer or frigate at ASC every two years from now on continuously? Otherwise we never catch up to our planned strength.

 

[Flexson]

The 8 Anzacs were all launched within 10 years between 1996 and 2006.

Minor nit-pick and doesn't answer your questions but it was 10 Anzac's commissioned between 1996 and 2006. Te Kaha and Te Mana were hulls #2 and #4.

 

[John Fedup]

Reptilia

Thanks for that info on program timing. Unfortunately though that confirms my fears. If we don’t finish Hunters till 2048 to 2052 the 8th Anzac will be over 40 years old by then (in 2046), which means fleet numbers or serviceability will continue declining.

In fact, Hobart will turn 30 in 2047, so we should have started replacing the Hobarts before we will have finished the Hunters. From a niaive “counting the hulls” viewpoint, the whole program looks too late, just as the Attacks were. This is not a criticism of ASC but past government ordering.

Logically, if we want to increase RAN “tier 1” hull numbers back to 12 or more, and we build the larger ships on a 2 year drumbeat, it takes 24 years to renew the fleet, without any growth. So shouldn’t we be completing a destroyer or frigate at ASC every two years from now on continuously? Otherwise we never catch up to our planned strength.

Could be worse. The newest Halifax class, HMCS Ottawa was built in 1996. The last CSC is scheduled for 2048 but as the program isn’t underway yet and likely won’t be until 2026, into the 2050s is more likely. Even when HMCS Ottawa is replaced by the 12th CSC, she will likely be at least 50 years old.

 

[seaspear]

All three versions have a MT30 gas turbine in addition to the four diesels.

The top speed of the Hunter class may be cut by larger mass does the same also apply to the slower stealth speed for operating directly against submarines

 

[Reptilia]

Reptilia

Thanks for that info on program timing. Unfortunately though that confirms my fears. If we don’t finish Hunters till 2048 to 2052 the 8th Anzac will be over 40 years old by then (in 2046), which means fleet numbers or serviceability will continue declining.

In fact, Hobart will turn 30 in 2047, so we should have started replacing the Hobarts before we will have finished the Hunters. From a niaive “counting the hulls” viewpoint, the whole program looks too late, just as the Attacks were. This is not a criticism of ASC but past government ordering.

Logically, if we want to increase RAN “tier 1” hull numbers back to 12 or more, and we build the larger ships on a 2 year drumbeat, it takes 24 years to renew the fleet, without any growth. So shouldn’t we be completing a destroyer or frigate at ASC every two years from now on continuously? Otherwise we never catch up to our planned strength.

it is not as bad as it seems Imo. A few changes could see us get back on track. All hypothetical…

3 HOBART, buy 3 more from navantia, not build. (+6 billion)
6 HUNTER-Osborne south, followed by a Hobart replacement(Type 83 would make sense in many ways), (save 10/15 billion, -3 Hunter ships)
8 ANZAC, 4 decommissioned in the 2030s, 4 in the 2040s
6 ARAFURA-Henderson, opvs get temporary, not fixed add ons for 10 years
6+ Tier 2 Corvette?, from late 2020s, after Arafura at Henderson

In 1 year, 2024
3 Hobart, 8 Anzac, 2 Arafura

In 10 years, 2033
6 Hobart, 1 Hunter, 8 Anzac, 6 Arafura, 3xTier 2 ships

In 20 years, 2043 - Back on track…
6 Hobart, 5/6 Hunter, 2 Anzac, 6/8xTier 2 ships, (6 Arafura, to BF, sold or other navy use)
12 Tier 1, 6/8 Tier 2 + Anzacs

in 30 years, 2053 - possible beginning of expansion to 16 tier 1. Autonomous ships may come into play Tier 2.
4 Hobart, 4 Type 83?, 6 Hunter, 10/12cTier 2 ships
14 Tier 1, 10/12 Tier 2

Phasing out hobarts while Building 2 more type 83, replacement Hunter underway(more than 6), replacement tier 2 underway(fully electric/Electric-Hydrogen autonomous)

 

[old faithful]

And of course, there is one other scenario.....sometime between now and 2045, there is a major conflict, and Australia mobilises. In which case, ship building gets much faster if the yards are operational.

 

[MickB]

In line with the old saying "steel is cheap , air is free" why build an totally new class of frigate?
Why not build 6 Hunters as proposed and 6 Hunter Lite with reduced equipment levels.
Follow the fitted for but not with design approach.

Build in alternating batches of 3.
To get more hulls in the water faster increase the drumbeat to 2 years per Hunter and 1.5 years for the Hunter Lite.

The Hunter Lite will have both reduced cost and crewing levels.
The Hunter Lite will fill the role of either GP or Patrol Frigate depending on fit out.
Yet be able to be upgraded to full Hunter level relatively quickly.

 

[swerve]

Not all steel is equally cheap, & a ship like the Type 26 isn't a simple hull like a container ship or bulk carrier. The hull is designed to be quiet & have a low radar cross-section, & IIRC be relatively inconspicuous thermally, & that costs money. The propulsion isn't cheap, & it's designed not to transmit noise to the hull. It's designed to be a top of class anti-submarine ship.

A Hunter with Type 31 systems & weapons would still be much more expensive to build & more expensive to operate than a Type 31, even with the same crew. Unless you think there's a real chance you're going to need its characteristics it'd be a waste of money.

 

[hauritz]

I recently re-read the DSR and noticed one of their recommendations 13.7 was that lower priority programs should either be stopped or suspended to free up essentual resources which can be allocted to projects and programs that align with the priorities in the review.

This of course means that programs such as the Hunter and Arafura programs won't neccessarily be cancelled or cutback but could instead be suspended to allow other higher priority programs to proceed. For example we might see all work on the Arafura class halted (where practical) to allow for a class of new tier 2 frigates to be built. Work on the Arafura could then procede at a later point. Same with the Hunter which could see production suspended to allow for a new batch of Hobarts to be built.

I just thought it was interesting because suspension of work is another option to just straight out cancelling a project.

 

[ADMk2]

I recently re-read the DSR and noticed one of their recommendations 13.7 was that lower priority programs should either be stopped or suspended to free up essentual resources which can be allocted to projects and programs that align with the priorities in the review.

This of course means that programs such as the Hunter and Arafura programs won't neccessarily be cancelled or cutback but could instead be suspended to allow other higher priority programs to proceed. For example we might see all work on the Arafura class halted (where practical) to allow for a class of new tier 2 frigates to be built. Work on the Arafura could then procede at a later point. Same with the Hunter which could see production suspended to allow for a new batch of Hobarts to be built.

I just thought it was interesting because suspension of work is another option to just straight out cancelling a project.

Well only another lazy 6 months to study the problem, then another 2-3 months for government to ‘consider’ it’s response before any tough decisions actually have to be made, and that is assuming this review doesn’t recommend yet another review, as the last one did (multiple times)…

 

[hauritz]

Well only another lazy 6 months to study the problem, then another 2-3 months for government to ‘consider’ it’s response before any tough decisions actually have to be made, and that is assuming this review doesn’t recommend yet another review, as the last one did (multiple times)…

That is definitely a concern. When I see something like C-Dome being bolted to the back of the Arafura OPV I can see some politician believing this is a viable option and using it as an excuse to push back any decision on a proper teir two frigate.

 

[Reptilia]

In the meantime, I doubt they delay anything, 6 Arafuras will be ready in just over 3 years. 1 and 2 should be ready in 2024, 3 and 4 in 25, 5 and 6 26. Looks likely they may transition to another build instead of continuing with the Arafura 7-12.
Review in 6 months(late 2023), making a decision on a tier 2 ship in 12 months time(late 2024), planning a program prior to Arafura completion(late 2025/2026), beginning a build program when Arafura 6 is complete(2027).
The Hunter build has already begun. 1st block being made.

 

[Redlands18]

The current plan for the RAN basically goes back to the 2009 DWP, with minor changes in 2012 and 2016 DWPs and the 2020 update. The 2009 DWP called for 12 SSKs, 8 FFGs and 20 OPVs, by 2016 it had changed to 9 FFGs and 12 OPVs, in 2020 a further 6-8 OPVs were added to replace the Huons and Hydrographic ships. 14 years later not a single one of those ships has been delivered to the RAN. These reviews are supposed to deliver results, they have delivered nothing, I don't know any other nation that has become so bad at not being able to deliver a new fleet.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It is my understanding that Navantia put the offer in as A - they have limited workload for the shipyards in Spain. B- That the ships would be built & fitted out there, with minimal work in AUS once they arrived.

The reality of this is two-fold
#1 -Navantia can build the ships CHEAPER in Spain, so would make a lot of money off the contract.
#2 - The skills learned by the workforce if the ships were built in AUS (plus any monies spent on materials / along with the fact that the workforce & suppliers then spend that cash in AUS, keeping the money & taxes in-country) benefits AUS.

The point I'm tryuing to make is that AUS pays a lot of money for x3 ships, but doesn't gain as much in return, in effect it would cost the country more. This might be part of the main socio-economic/ political drive to ignore the offer & keep everything effectively in-house.

The spanish offer is a bit weird because I thought by now we would know either way. Yes or No, and probably a public why. But instead, it gets more mysterious.

Spanish pitch to supply Australia with three warships by end of 2030

Spanish defence giant has told federal officials it can supply three guided-missile warships by the end of this decade.

www.smh.com.au

The warships have a similar design to three destroyers the company built in Spain and South Australia last decade.

Similar, not the same. We don't know if they were offering F-110 with 24-48 VLS. Although later in the article it claims the main weapon is the 48 VLS and the 8 antiship missiles.

“Should you think that you have a capability gap that is going to happen in the next 15 years, we have a ship that meets the Australian requirements,” he said in an interview.

As a state-owned company, Navantia has the backing of the Spanish president for the Australian bid and is pitching to start work within months so it could deliver the first ship in 2027 and the third in 2029.

While spains proposal seems to be initially targeting 2030, there may have been a longer term play in it. I don't know how he knows the requirements, the Australian government doesn't seem to know its requirements nor does the Navy.

The key issue is the amount of local construction. The three Navantia destroyers already in operation, called the Hobart class, were 60 per cent built in Australia, but the new proposal argues that most construction should be in Spain to save time. The proposal includes an Australian-made option and a “hybrid” with construction in both countries.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/navantia-air-warfare-destroyer-bid-surprise/news-story/60779612b40b42b99c8e662c5103638b

The navy’s revised schedule currently has the first Anzac frigate retiring in the 2029-2030 timeframe and the last in the 2042-2043 period. But, while both sides of parliament were reportedly aware of the bid, nobody seems to have told the Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Michael Noonan about it.

Having testified at a Senate Estimates hearing on April 1 that there was “no contemplation” of additional Hobart-class destroyers, VADM Noonan seemed taken by surprise by further questions on the matter during a Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee hearing just five days later.

“I became aware of media reporting last night of a proposal from Navantia suggesting that they had the capability to build three more additional warfare destroyers,” Noonan testified.

It appears no one from government or Navantia ever talked to the Navy, or the Navy is playing coy or there is complications within the Navy that resulted in Noonan not getting the information, or his statement is inaccurate.

Quoting the company’s managing director, Israel Lozano Barragan, the article said Navantia Australia was willing to consider a local build, full construction in Spain or a hybrid build such as that undertaken with the navy’s two Canberra-class Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) vessels.

It may be that Spain is very interested in welding steel for the ships, but less interested in high tech fitout, which may be done by non-government workers.

Spain has its own problems. Its submarine program is winding down. It would love some sort of buffering work for its workforce in Cartagena. Around 2026, the F-110 and the Submarine programs will basically be wrapped up, and there will be a lot of workers not doing much. Spain knows the problems of continuous work of a medium power and its navy with its state run yards. Its having similar problems.

There is also the EUFTA aspect of this as well.

Spain backs Australia-EU trade deal, steps up push to sell ships

Spain is pushing the government to buy its warships while also seeking to secure critical minerals from Australia as an alternative to China’s stranglehold.

www.afr.com

Regarding the status of the offer, the last I hear was this in Dec.

Last month, departmental officials told Parliament that an unsolicited Navantia Australia proposal to build three more Hobart class DDGs is being actively examined by the DSR and separately by the RAND Corporation as part of a risk reduction assessment. While Defence officials were tight-lipped on details, they confirmed that the RAND study (worth AUD 1 million), is examining both the acquisition and capability impacts of the proposal, which is also being informed by Navantia.

In a written response to questions on notice, Defence said that it “has been working with RAND and Navantia at the working level” and “is [currently] assessing the unsolicited proposal to purchase three Navantia destroyers.”

What does Australia's Strategic Review hold for the RAN? - Naval News

Australia’s Defence Strategic Review (DSR) is set to be publicly released in March next year. Here are a few hints on how it could impact the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)...

www.navalnews.com

This same article puts in the the current condundrum of the OPV's.

Another major change, reportedly being examined by the DSR, is the possibility of either up-arming or divesting the service’s new Arafura-class OPVs, before NUSHIP Arafura has even conducted sea trials. The concern, Naval News understands, is that the OPVs are not able to contribute to any high-end scenarios, as they lack so much as a large calibre gun. One possibility, being examined, is outfitting the vessels with between four and six Kongsberg Naval Strike Missiles, which the RAN is already procuring.

Another approach, which has gained some traction, is the possibility of divesting the fleet to other government agencies (such as the Australian Border Force) and international partners (such as Papua New Guinea), and instead procuring a fleet of missile-armed corvettes.

Which is the problem with the OPV's, not sure there is the margin to fit an offensive missile in reasonable numbers, ~6-8 NSM, and a missile based defence with some reach. It would seem the Navy would probably be happy with NSM and ESSM, a main gun and other basic features (rhib, towed, some aviation), if they could get that onto a platform.

The thing is this is all coming from Andrew Tillett, Phillip Correy.

I am surprised the government and the Navy don't know what they want. I suspect its more complicated than that, its about how to deliver what they want. But either way, time ticks on. Work dries up, the strategic situation gets worse, costs tend to go up as well.

 

[Tasman]

Meanwhile it is good to see the navy in Hobart. HMAS Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane are visiting for the next few days. The paintwork on Adelaide is interesting. Looks like the paint being used for touch ups is a different shade to that used in the Dockyard! Almost looks like a type of camouflage!







Tas

 

[John Fedup]

The top speed of the Hunter class may be cut by larger mass does the same also apply to the slower stealth speed for operating directly against submarines

The MT30 is for high speed. For normal cruise and anti-sub operations I believe the diesels are used which power the electric motors. The T26 propulsion is CODLOG (combined diesel electric or gas ).

 

[Scott Elaurant]

The top speed of the Hunter class may be cut by larger mass does the same also apply to the slower stealth speed for operating directly against submarines

Seaspear

i don’t know the exact detail or any performance reports, but I expect it would make very little difference at low speed. A ships speed is a function of the hydrodynamic drag (which is closely related to tonnage and shape) and the shaft power. Except that it is a squared relationship, so that you need four times the power to double speed.

in Hunters case, the tonnage (10,000 tonnes) is 25% higher than a Type 26 (8000 tonnes). For the same engine power that suggests a top speed loss of 12%. That is a Hunter would be about 3.5 knots slower if Type 26 top speed was 30 knots. Say 26 knots. At lower speeds though, the difference is correspondingly less. At 10 knots, Hunter would be one knot slower than Type 26, for the same power.